Securities Lawyers Blog
The securities lawyers at Gana Weinstein LLP represent investors who have been mistreated by their brokers and suffered investment losses. Our firm is experienced in bringing claims against brokerage firms, such as Noble Capital Markets, Inc., to hold Wall Street responsible for their misconduct. When a client contacts our firm they can expect that our attorneys will have the knowledge and ability to evaluate the potential claims and analyze their trading activity for red flags of misconduct. Our consultations are designed to help provide clients with all available options.
Noble Capital Markets is a full-service broker-dealer dedicated to underfollowed small and micro-cap companies, offering investment and merchant banking, merger and acquisition advisory and valuations, trading and market making, wealth management, and issuer-sponsored equity research. Founded in 1984 and headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, the firm is a subsidiary of Noble Financial Group, hosts the annual NobleCon investor conference, and has published more than 45,000 equity research reports.
Noble Capital Markets, Inc. – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 15768
- Regulatory Events: 9
- Arbitration Events: 11
- Broker Employees: 31
Noble Capital Markets, Inc. – In the News:
FINRA v. Noble Capital Markets, Inc. (Case #2020065533402) – Between September 2019 and January 2020, Noble failed to establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system, including written supervisory procedures (WSPs), reasonably designed to achieve compliance with provisions of the federal securities laws related to the general solicitation of private placement offerings. Additionally, Noble failed to reasonably supervise a registered representative who, in connection with two private offerings, cold-called more than 40 prospective investors who did not have substantive relationships with the firm prior to its participation in the offerings. As a result, Noble violated FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010, and is censured and fined $45,000.
FINRA v. Noble Capital Markets, Inc. (Case #2013035740901) – From April 2011 through September 2011 (the “Relevant Period”), Respondents Noble and Noble’s President, Pronk, recommended and sold nearly a million shares of AdCare Health Systems, Inc. (“AdCare”) common stock (ticker symbol: ADK) to seven customers without disclosing Noble’s multiple and material conflicts of interest. Respondents promoted and recommended ADK to prospective investors to profit from Noble’s undisclosed investment banking relationships with AdCare and their undisclosed arbitrage of AdCare securities, which created a financial incentive for Respondents to recommend ADK to customers. Pronk retained ultimate control over all Firm activities including proprietary trading, sales, investment banking, and the decision to initiate and prioritize the promotion and sale of ADK. To boost the sale of ADK, Respondents aggressively promoted and solicited purchases of ADK by: issuing research through Noble’s Research Department, conducting non-deal road shows through Noble’s Investment Banking and Institutional Sales Departments, and contacting prospective investors, primarily institutions, through registered representatives in Noble’s Institutional Sales Departments (“Brokers”). Respondents also provided the Brokers with a misleading sales script to use when soliciting prospective investors in ADK. While selling ADK, Respondents failed to inform the seven customers who purchased ADK about four material conflicts of interest: a. First, that AdCare paid Noble $6,000 a month to provide advisory services to AdCare, pursuant to an Advisory Agreement entered into with AdCare in February 2011 (“Advisory Agreement”); b. Second, that Noble agreed to raise capital for AdCare in return for a seven percent cash fee on the total gross proceeds generated from the exercise of both publicly-traded and privately-held AdCare warrants pursuant to an addendum to the Advisory Agreement executed in April 2011 (“Warrant Agreement”); c. Third, that Noble promised the Brokers extraordinary incentive compensation, in addition to the normal commissions, to promote and solicit sales of ADK; and, d. Finally, that Respondents were engaged in a speculative arbitrage trading strategy in ADK and publicly-traded AdCare warrants (ticker symbol: “ADK.WS”). In connection with the arbitrage, Respondents, through Noble’s proprietary accounts, purchased and held ADK.WS and sold short ADK to its customers. Later, Noble exercised the warrants it held long and, using the common shares it received through the exercises, covered its short position in ADK. Respondents engaged in the arbitrage to profit from the spread between the cost of buying and exercising ADK.WS and the proceeds generated by short-selling ADK, and to generate Noble’s seven percent fee under the Warrant Agreement. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Respondent Pronk violated FINRA Rule 2010.
Our attorneys have successfully represented hundreds of investors in investment disputes with their brokers and brokerage firms. Our consultations are free and we welcome all inquiries.